Not trying to come off as a homer.... but it will def. sound that way.

Hind sight is 20 - 20, so looking back you have Elway, Marino, Kelly all HOF qb's that came out of that class. So you can say 1a or 1b...whatever you want.

But just like the 30 for 30 made clear, or anytime you hear about QBs in the draft they are measured up to Elway. He was/is still the best QB to come out, he had a ROCKET arm. BUT WHAT I FEEL LIKE PEOPLE OVERLOOK was his athletic ability because he was white or just heard about his arm... he was the Yankee's 1st pick in the draft that year and he was drafted to play left field...just because he didnt run around ALL THE TIME doesnt/shouldnt take away from his ability to... Ironically enough Andrew Luck another stanford alum posses the same combo, great arm and above athletic ability. (Just to point out Deion Sanders played left field..just saying you have to be athletic to play the position)

But to say Marino should have been 1a or 1b is not giving Elway credit he deserves.

ANOTHER thing is if you want to mention not having talent in Marino's defense as a reason why he never made it to more than 1 SB.... go look at the 1st three times Elway went... HE SINGLE HANDEDLY is the sole reason the Broncos went to the 1st three.

By the time the 1997 and 1998 wins came around we had actually built a team and gave him players to work with... But dont act like he always had great players around him, because the 1st three times the Broncos went to the SB outside of Elway they might have had the least amount of talent to ever make it

Oh, I know. I am a Denver fan as well, and I grew up watching Elway. I am not dissing him at all. I know that the first two teams he led to the Super Bowl weren't that talented, and they shouldn't have been there, especially the 87 team. He was the whole team those two seasons.

However, their 89 team was better than the other two Denver teams that made it to the SB in the 80's. They got rid of Joe Collier, and replaced him with Wade Phillips. They got rid of Mike Harden, drafted Steve Atwater, and promoted CB Tyrone Braxton to starter. Simon Fletcher had his first 10+ sack year. They promoted future Pro Bowl LB Michael Brooks to the starting lineup.

And, they signed two DE's in Plan B, Ron Holmes and Alphonso Carreker, that made good contributions. Holmes had nine sacks that year. That was the best scoring D in the NFL.

Also, they added RB Bobby Humphrey as well, giving Elway his first good feature back behind him.

It was ironic that the 89 Broncos suffered the biggest blowout in the Super Bowl of those three teams, but the zone that SF was in, coupled with the bad vibe that the Broncos felt going into that game, spelled disaster. I remember how some people in Denver didn't want them to go back to the SB that year because they were afraid of losing again.

And, I agree with what you said about Elway's talent. He was the best prospect that year. However, Dan was pretty darn good, too. If he came out a year earlier, he would have been the #1 overall pick, not Kenneth Sims.

Elway did put his teams on his back back in the early days...... but it wasn't until the great ZBS & Terrell Davis that he won a ring.

Remember, when they beat the Packers in Super Bowl 32, they were about an 11 point dog, and the NFC had won the last 15 or so Super Bowls. Leave it to Farve to blow that.
But it was the Terrell Davis Show, not John Elway.

Elway's arm was stronger than any QB ever IMO.
But he wasn't that accurate.
He also was very athletic, at least for the first 8 or so years.

Marino could barely move after a few years.
But his passing was a work of art.

How many games did Fouts play in bad weather conditions though? I know the one everyone talks about is the 1981 game against the Bengals, but other than that I can't remember any other notable ones during the height of Fouts' career.

Jim Kelly had to play in snowing Buffalo every year. So there is something.

Elway did put his teams on his back back in the early days...... but it wasn't until the great ZBS & Terrell Davis that he won a ring.

Remember, when they beat the Packers in Super Bowl 32, they were about an 11 point dog, and the NFC had won the last 15 or so Super Bowls. Leave it to Farve to blow that.
But it was the Terrell Davis Show, not John Elway.

Elway's arm was stronger than any QB ever IMO.
But he wasn't that accurate.
He also was very athletic, at least for the first 8 or so years.

Marino could barely move after a few years.
But his passing was a work of art.

I would rank him, as a pure passer, #1, with Dan Fouts a close 2nd.

Davis was a big part of those teams, but the offensive line was pretty great as well. They had four Pro Bowl players on it in 97, and three in 98 after Zimmerman retired.

In addition, Elway made two runs in SB 32 where Leroy Butler couldn't tackle him that made a big difference in the game.

And, when you say that Elway wasn't that accurate, you are making him sound like Tebow. He wasn't perfectly accurate like Ken Anderson was, but his accuracy was solid.

In regards to Super Bowl 32, the first thing I want to say is that the Broncos were probably a severely underrated team that year. I believe they ranked first in the league in "Pythagorean Wins" which is a better year-to-year predictor than actual wins, and they showed the next season that they weren't just a fluke.

Also, everything that I've ever read has led me to believe that some of the players and coaching staff blame Holmgren for the loss because he abandoned the run, it seems, to try to prove some kind of point. My pet theory has always been that he wanted his boy Favre to win SB MVP after they gave it to a KR the year before. I can't find the article right now, but I remember that when Dorsey Levens joined Andy Reid in Philadelphia he specifically asked Reid about the decision to abandon the run, and Reid said something along the lines of "there was more going on than the players realized, and I'll tell you when you retire." Someday, somebody will probably write a tell-all book about the Favre-era in Green Bay, and maybe then we'll know more.

At the end of the day, Holmgren was out-coached by Shanahan. If the Broncos weren't better than the Packers for the entire season, they were certainly better during the most important game of the season.

How many games did Fouts play in bad weather conditions though? I know the one everyone talks about is the 1981 game against the Bengals, but other than that I can't remember any other notable ones during the height of Fouts' career.

Jim Kelly had to play in snowing Buffalo every year. So there is something.

Doesn't matter. Any time we have any discussion about the GOAT at anything, we have to be overly critical of their flaws. It's the only fair way to have the discussion.

I can't put him as the 2nd best pure thrower of all time when he struggled in poor weather conditions. Not saying he's not a great thrower, but when we're talking about the 2nd best thrower of all time, you can't be that guy when you have shown that you can't throw in all weather conditions.

In my opinion, Elway was clearly the better player as far as being a quarterback, a team leader. The thing that separated the two was his understanding of the game and clock management. Many times Marino put his team in a position to lose. A lot of his defenses were average at best. He would watch the opponent march down the field in the 4th quarter on a 7 minute touchdown drive that would tire and exhaust his defense, yet his answer would be to come back with a bang-bang-bang touchdown drive of his own that put his defense right back on the field again. I don't know what the statistics are, but I would venture to say that his teams were on the losing end of the time-of-possession game more often than not. I always felt the same way about Fouts as well. If you needed a touchdown in a hurry, they were your guy. But if you needed a touchdown and a rest for your defense, they couldn't do it. In this way I think Elway understood the game on a whole different level.

I think the knocks on Marino as a "quarterback" in this thread are absolutely ridiculous.

The best chance Marino ever had to win a superbowl was in 1994 after Don Shula finally assembled a team around Marino by spending big in free agency, and putting Miami into cap hell as a last ditch effort to help Marino win a superbowl.

Marino fired 3 first half touchdown passes to put Miami up 21-6 at halftime over the Chargers in the divisional round of the playoffs. The defense again crumbled as Natrone Means rumbled over them in the 2nd half, controlling the clock and keeping Marino off the field.

Marino led Miami in to field goal range for the game winning attempt as time ticked off the clock.... Stoyanovich missed. San Diego won 22-21, and went on to get throttled by the 49ers in the superbowl.

I remember the first game of that season. Marino was coming off his season ending achilles injury in '93. His first game back was against the Bill Parcells and Drew Bledsoe led Patriots. Marino passed for 473 yards and 5 TD's in his first game back from the achilles injury to lead Miami to a 39-35 victory in another shootout.

Marino threw a 35 yard TD on 4th and 10 for the win.

The defense was shredded by Bledsoe, who himself passed for 420+ yards and 4 TD's. This was a sample of the defense that would plague Miami later in the year vs. the Chargers.

I remember Parcells being so desperate in that game that he put a rookie Willie McGinnest into the game just to try and generate some type of pressure on Marino... but even Parcells knew it didn't matter. When Marino was on fire like this, you could've had 15 players on defense. You weren't going to stop him.

You have to have a running game to manage the clock. Marino's clock management was spectacular. However, he knew what the priority was. His priority was always to score and hope the defense got lucky. That's all he could do.

There's not another quarterback that would've done what Marino was able to do with the teams that he had around him. Nobody.

The "fake spike" against the Jets was one of the most unbelievable plays that a QB has ever made in crunch time.

Bill Walsh said it best... "Joe Montana is the product of a system... Dan Marino is a system".

Bottom line for me is this when judging QB's. If all the great one's were on the same team, they'd all be standing on the sidelines watching Marino. They wouldn't beat him out.

I think the knocks on Marino as a "quarterback" in this thread are absolutely ridiculous.

The best chance Marino ever had to win a superbowl was in 1994 after Don Shula finally assembled a team around Marino by spending big in free agency, and putting Miami into cap hell as a last ditch effort to help Marino win a superbowl.

Marino fired 3 first half touchdown passes to put Miami up 21-6 at halftime over the Chargers in the divisional round of the playoffs. The defense again crumbled as Natrone Means rumbled over them in the 2nd half, controlling the clock and keeping Marino off the field.

Marino led Miami in to field goal range for the game winning attempt as time ticked off the clock.... Stoyanovich missed. San Diego won 22-21, and went on to get throttled by the 49ers in the superbowl.

I remember the first game of that season. Marino was coming off his season ending achilles injury in '93. His first game back was against the Bill Parcells and Drew Bledsoe led Patriots. Marino passed for 473 yards and 5 TD's in his first game back from the achilles injury to lead Miami to a 39-35 victory in another shootout.

Marino threw a 35 yard TD on 4th and 10 for the win.

The defense was shredded by Bledsoe, who himself passed for 420+ yards and 4 TD's. This was a sample of the defense that would plague Miami later in the year vs. the Chargers.

I remember Parcells being so desperate in that game that he put a rookie Willie McGinnest into the game just to try and generate some type of pressure on Marino... but even Parcells knew it didn't matter. When Marino was on fire like this, you could've had 15 players on defense. You weren't going to stop him.

You have to have a running game to manage the clock. Marino's clock management was spectacular. However, he knew what the priority was. His priority was always to score and hope the defense got lucky. That's all he could do.

There's not another quarterback that would've done what Marino was able to do with the teams that he had around him. Nobody.

The "fake spike" against the Jets was one of the most unbelievable plays that a QB has ever made in crunch time.

Bill Walsh said it best... "Joe Montana is the product of a system... Dan Marino is a system".

Bottom line for me is this when judging QB's. If all the great one's were on the same team, they'd all be standing on the sidelines watching Marino. They wouldn't beat him out.

The thing that everyone always fails to consider with those Dolphins defenses, as well as Fouts' old Chargers defenses, is how many yards they gave up late in the game because they had already been on the field for 37 minutes. The Dolphins only ran the ball 8 times that game, and ran a total of 46 plays to the Chargers' 83 plays. Clock management isn't solely a matter of what a QB can do when he has two minutes and the length of the field to go. It is equally as important in the middle of the 2nd quarter when things haven't gone your way and your QB has been on the sideline for the last 12 minutes. As I said before, what Marino could accomplish in 2 minutes was spectacular, but he couldn't sustain a long, time-eating drive to save his life.

And, for what it's worth, there was no way the Dolphins would have won that Super Bowl even if they had made it. The 49ers destroyed the Chargers 49-26 and it wasn't nearly as close of a game as the score suggested.

In his career, Dan Marino played in 18 playoff games, with an overall record of 9-9. In all 9 losses the opponent ran the ball more times than the Dolphins did. In 8 of the 9 wins, the Dolphins ran the ball more times than their opponent did. The one exception: 1985, when they beat the Brown despite the Browns running 37 times to the Dolphins 19.

So in all of his greatness, all those times that Marino lived and died by his arm when it counted most, the one and only time he wound up victorious was against...the Cleveland Browns.

The thing that everyone always fails to consider with those Dolphins defenses, as well as Fouts' old Chargers defenses, is how many yards they gave up late in the game because they had already been on the field for 37 minutes. The Dolphins only ran the ball 8 times that game, and ran a total of 46 plays to the Chargers' 83 plays. Clock management isn't solely a matter of what a QB can do when he has two minutes and the length of the field to go. It is equally as important in the middle of the 2nd quarter when things haven't gone your way and your QB has been on the sideline for the last 12 minutes. As I said before, what Marino could accomplish in 2 minutes was spectacular, but he couldn't sustain a long, time-eating drive to save his life.

And, for what it's worth, there was no way the Dolphins would have won that Super Bowl even if they had made it. The 49ers destroyed the Chargers 49-26 and it wasn't nearly as close of a game as the score suggested.

I tend to agree here on the bolded part. However, the point is Marino didn't have the opportunity to play in that superbowl through the failings of his defense. Rinse. Repeat.

It's not because he couldn't sustain a time eating drive. An offensive line built to run block is what sustains drives.

Miami's defense couldn't ever get off the field on 3rd downs. Thus the disparity in play count.

Did you watch that game? Because if you saw the defensive breakdown on Humpries' TD pass to Mark Seay that put the Chargers in the lead, on top of letting Means run them to death in the 2nd half.... you know why Miami lost that game. It wasn't on Marino. He's the only reason they were in it, and in the playoffs to begin with.

There's not a single QB in the Hall of Fame because of how they sustain long drives.

In his career, Dan Marino played in 18 playoff games, with an overall record of 9-9. In all 9 losses the opponent ran the ball more times than the Dolphins did. In 8 of the 9 wins, the Dolphins ran the ball more times than their opponent did. The one exception: 1985, when they beat the Brown despite the Browns running 37 times to the Dolphins 19.

So in all of his greatness, all those times that Marino lived and died by his arm when it counted most, the one and only time he wound up victorious was against...the Cleveland Browns.

Dan Marino's playoff record is actually 8-10.

Secondly, you don't run the ball if you're behind trying to catch up. Running game is typically a complement to your defense. You're not going to be a winning team by running the football if you don't have a defense to begin with.

The point is that Miami was built wrong during the Marino era. They were a one man show. No running game. No defense.

Miami didn't run the ball in the playoffs because that's not how they got there to begin with. You don't change what you are.

Miami's best chance to win was exactly what got 'em there in the first place... which was Marino carrying them. The problem is that it usually wasn't enough against more balanced, and better teams.

Handing the rock off 35 times to Bernie Parmalee behind a finesse offensive line built to pass block wasn't going to win Marino any superbowls.

As I said before, Marino didn't need a running game. For 17 years teams knew and game planned for the only legitimate threat Miami had, Dan Marino... and they couldn't stop him.

What he needed was a defense that could rise to the occassion at least somewhat.... the way Peyton Manning's defense did in the playoffs during his superbowl victory.

I tend to agree here on the bolded part. However, the point is Marino didn't have the opportunity to play in that superbowl through the failings of his defense. Rinse. Repeat.

It's not because he couldn't sustain a time eating drive. An offensive line built to run block is what sustains drives.

Miami's defense couldn't ever get off the field on 3rd downs. Thus the disparity in play count.

Did you watch that game? Because if you saw the defensive breakdown on Humpries' TD pass to Mark Seay that put the Chargers in the lead, on top of letting Means run them to death in the 2nd half.... you know why Miami lost that game. It wasn't on Marino. He's the only reason they were in it, and in the playoffs to begin with.

There's not a single QB in the Hall of Fame because of how they sustain long drives.

I got what your point was...that's why I threw it in as a "for what it's worth."

My point, conversely, is that Marino wanted to throw every down, and it didn't serve him well. If he had led a more balanced offense then his defense would not have been on the field all day in the first place. How many extra snaps had his defense played during that full season leading up to the playoffs because of his gun-it-every-time approach to the game? Nearly all of the Dolphins' playoff success during his career can be attributed to their ability to run the ball, while all of their playoff failures were due to an abandonment of the running game. His style of play wore them out all season long, and they always went into the postseason worn out and exhausted.

Again, the problem I have with the "Marino didn't have help" argument is basically:

1. He did have help. They built the team around the pass game. Was it the right way to build the team? Probably not. But they used their resources in the pass game, which also is a big reason why Marino put up gaudy numbers to begin with. You can't have it both ways. It's a give and take. Had they invested more on defense and the run game, Marino's numbers would not be the same. It's the Peyton Manning excuse. They chose to invest in the pass game, that's how they built the team.

2. Even then, the AFC was godawful his entire career. The AFC wasn't even close to the NFC, he should have had more playoff success. John Elway didn't have a great team and went to more SBs. The era he played in had an extremely weak AFC, yet he still lacked playoff success.

Sometimes you just have to get it done. Every qb has an excuse. I can make a legitimate excuse for every single quarterback for not performing up to expectations. But at the end of the day, they're just excuses.

It's like our debates year in and year out over here about bad qbs. They all have the same excuses: Bad OC, no weapons, no OL, no run game, defense doesn't do its job. Then a good qb takes the same team and puts them in the playoffs.

Secondly, you don't run the ball if you're behind trying to catch up. Running game is typically a complement to your defense. You're not going to be a winning team by running the football if you don't have a defense to begin with.

The point is that Miami was built wrong during the Marino era. They were a one man show. No running game. No defense.

Miami didn't run the ball in the playoffs because that's not how they got there to begin with. You don't change what you are.

Miami's best chance to win was exactly what got 'em there in the first place... which was Marino carrying them. The problem is that it usually wasn't enough against more balanced, and better teams.

Handing the rock off 35 times to Bernie Parmalee behind a finesse offensive line built to pass block wasn't going to win Marino any superbowls.

As I said before, Marino didn't need a running game. For 17 years teams knew and game planned for the only legitimate threat Miami had, Dan Marino... and they couldn't stop him.

What he needed was a defense that could rise to the occassion at least somewhat.... the way Peyton Manning's defense did in the playoffs during his superbowl victory.

You know what would be a great study...to take a look at those Miami defenses and see how they compared from the first half of games to the second, or the first half of seasons to the second. I would venture to say they were better than anyone has ever given them credit for.

It is obvious that you are a knowledgeable fan of the Dolphins. That being said, how can you discard the success they had when running the ball in the postseason, and not equate it to the failures they had when not running the ball?

It seems to me that people have this image of Dan Marino taking his team on his back game after game and magically throwing them into legitimacy, when in reality, he threw for tens of thousands of yards and hundreds of touchdowns when it would have been better for his team to hand it off to someone else.

Matt Ryan's playoff failures are not his defense's fault. Matt Ryan prior to this last season was god awful in the playoffs. And even this time, he disappeared in both 2nd halves of each playoff game.

Matt Ryan has Matt Ryan to blame for his playoff woes.

This is simply inaccurate. Matt Ryan is responsible only for his mistakes. He's not responsible for his defense's tendency to entirely forget how to tackle come playoff time. He's not responsible for Van Gorder lining John Abraham up at nose tackle against the Packers in the playoffs, etc.

I remember Joe Flacco's first playoff win against the Dolphins in '08. Chad Pennington threw 4 INT's. This was the start of the Raven's defense carrying him throughout the playoffs.

Joe Flacco is still an inconsistent quarterback over a 16 game season, always has been. The only thing that changes with QB's after they win a superbowl is the perception.

If Matt Ryan ever wins a superbowl, he's going to be the same QB he is now. The only thing that will change is the perception of him. He's still an elite QB regardless of if he wins one or not.

This is why I couldn't put Elway above Marino on the all time list of great quarterbacks just because Terrell Davis managed to run him to 2 superbowls. I watched both for their entire careers.

As far as pure passers go, there's no doubt in my mind that Warren Moon was the 2nd best pure passer I've ever seen behind Marino. You won't see any rings on his fingers either despite building a 35-3 lead on the road in the playoffs against the dominant force in the AFC at the time.

This is simply inaccurate. Matt Ryan is responsible only for his mistakes. He's not responsible for his defense's tendency to entirely forget how to tackle come playoff time. He's not responsible for Van Gorder lining John Abraham up at nose tackle against the Packers in the playoffs, etc.

I remember Joe Flacco's first playoff win against the Dolphins in '08. Chad Pennington threw 4 INT's. This was the start of the Raven's defense carrying him throughout the playoffs.

Joe Flacco is still an inconsistent quarterback over a 16 game season, always has been. The only thing that changes with QB's after they win a superbowl is the perception.

If Matt Ryan ever wins a superbowl, he's going to be the same QB he is now. The only thing that will change is the perception of him. He's still an elite QB regardless of if he wins one or not.

This is why I couldn't put Elway above Marino on the all time list of great quarterbacks just because Terrell Davis managed to run him to 2 superbowls. I watched both for their entire careers.

As far as pure passers go, there's no doubt in my mind that Warren Moon was the 2nd best pure passer I've ever seen behind Marino. You won't see any rings on his fingers either despite building a 35-3 lead on the road in the playoffs against the dominant force in the AFC at the time.

You're right, he's only responsible for his mistakes.

And he made plenty of them. He was not a good quarterback in the playoffs prior to this year. You're being a qb apologist.

And I don't buy the Elway excuse either. Bc Elway went to 2 SBs during the same era as Marino with arguably a worse team and an infinitely worse coach.

Elway's track record of success even without the SB rings trumps Marino by a wide margin.

Again, the problem I have with the "Marino didn't have help" argument is basically:

1. He did have help. They built the team around the pass game. Was it the right way to build the team? Probably not. But they used their resources in the pass game, which also is a big reason why Marino put up gaudy numbers to begin with. You can't have it both ways. It's a give and take. Had they invested more on defense and the run game, Marino's numbers would not be the same. It's the Peyton Manning excuse. They chose to invest in the pass game, that's how they built the team. 2. Even then, the AFC was godawful his entire career. The AFC wasn't even close to the NFC, he should have had more playoff success. John Elway didn't have a great team and went to more SBs. The era he played in had an extremely weak AFC, yet he still lacked playoff success.

Sometimes you just have to get it done. Every qb has an excuse. I can make a legitimate excuse for every single quarterback for not performing up to expectations. But at the end of the day, they're just excuses.

It's like our debates year in and year out over here about bad qbs. They all have the same excuses: Bad OC, no weapons, no OL, no run game, defense doesn't do its job. Then a good qb takes the same team and puts them in the playoffs.

Why do you keep repeating this myth? Peyton Manning had a running game. Good grief. It was the defense that was always the weak link of Peyton's teams in Indy. They were dead last in the league agains the run the year Peyton won the superbowl. However, they stepped up and dominated during the playoffs as if they weren't even the same team.

Furthermore, it's not that Miami didn't invest on the defensive side of the ball. It's that all those high draft picks on that side of the ball were epic busts and out of the league in no time.

Those failures fall squarely on the shoulders of Don Shula, inparticular his loyalty to Olivadotti. We agree that the team was built wrong.... this is exactly what forced Marino to be great to begin with in order for Miami to be a competitive team. He had to be great.

Marino had nowhere near the talent on either side of the ball that Elway had in Denver. Marino in his prime never had a defensive player as good as Simon Fletcher for ****'s sake. Much less Steve Atwater, Neil Smith, etc.

Elway also took his teams to 3 other Super Bowls that they lost to superior NFC teams. The Broncos were clearly the best AFC team of the '80's in my opinion, even though the Raiders won 2 SBs. It seemed like Elway was on the field the entire day. Did he have a better defense than the Dolphins? Yes. But he also knew how to take control of a game and own the clock. That ability was more important than one might think. Is he in the Hall of Fame because he could sustain long drives? It is part of what made him a great player.